As the size of government continues to increase, individual responsibility decreases. Similarly, as individuals become less responsible regarding important aspects of their lives, demands for more government services increase. These trends feed on themselves then, and are growing in the Western world.This thought was triggered while viewing a CTV Saskatoon interview with a union representative about the early library closure in the city. The cause was the lack of safety in the evenings. As the night wears on, employees become more vulnerable to harassment from people who may be homeless and appear to be under the influence of drugs.The union rep spoke logically about the need to protect employees alone at night. But at the end of the interview, he attributed the problem to “underfunding of social services by the Saskatchewan Party government”.Blaming the Saskatchewan Party is no surprise, of course; unions just prefer big socialist governments. Look at the increase in public-sector employment during the NDP Notley years in Alberta, and the last eight years in Ottawa. Record hiring continued post Covid by the Trudeau/Singh unholy alliance.Essentially a business with revenues and expenses, unions cannot be faulted for supporting governments which increase their profitability and influence. But blaming the growing existence and behaviour of drug addicts on the Saskatchewan government? Did this government, by way of permissive policies, encourage the usage of illegal or illicit drugs? British Columbia, yes. But certainly not Saskatchewan. Was it a government official who made the purchase, or delivered the drugs to the user? Was it a Saskatchewan Party official who injected harmful drugs or lit the joint?We understand that no one smokes, drinks alcohol, or uses addictive drugs with the intention of becoming addicted. But these are individual choices, not the result of actions of any government, regardless of political persuasion.Yet, governments are expected to take responsibility for these damaging decisions. There is this to be said for the argument: The federal government and several provinces have set the “tone from the top,” with their de facto legalization of harmful drug usage. Sadly, Canada has become a leader in permissive drug laws. It began with the legalization of marijuana, one of the first and surely one of the worst decisions by the incumbent prime minister. That just opened the doors to widespread drug use including even the killer drug fentanyl. It has also made our young people vulnerable to ruthless foreign drug dealers.A response to unfortunate permissive policies is invariably demand for further government action. As homeless people, often drug addicts, expand their tent cities, social services attempt to keep up with the growing problem by way of “harm reduction.” This means providing clean syringes and even substitute drugs.This government intervention has been further extended with employees standing by with a syringe to revive obvious fatal overdoses. This is a further extension of the “nanny state” — preventing fatal self-harm. It also represents the ultimate surrender of individual responsibility.I can risk death by reckless behavior because the government will intervene.Although it will be historians who judge, it feels very much that the 300+ year advance of western civilization has tipped over and is in decline. This is in part a direct consequence of ever larger governments increasingly directing our lives, enabled by the absence of individual responsibility. The best (or perhaps worst) illustration of this phenomenon on a broader scale is our health-care system. Demand overwhelming the system was always the inevitable outcome of our single payer, free-to-user at point of service and exclusive provider model that makes governments responsible for a critical service... services that governments are not competent to deliver.Not competent? “Res ipsa loquitor” — the thing speaks for itself.Is the failure to adequately deliver one of the most important services for humanity the fault of government? Or are we complicit by surrendering responsibility? Maybe both?It wasn't the Saskatchewan Party which put in place permissive drug laws. Start with the federal government that legalized marijuana and then provincial governments such as British Columbia, which de facto legalized harmful drugs and encouraged destructive behavior with nanny-state comfort.Driving east on East Hastings in Vancouver, observing the incredible expansion of tents and open drug use, reveals the reality of a human tragedy and a sad exhibit of failed policies — even if this road to hell is paved with good intentions. The NDP government in British Columbia has fallen behind in the polls, just as an election is imminent. This led to a very rapid recent partial retreat from its permissive drug policies. The government can move on, but addiction, by definition, remains a destructive burden for the rest of the lives of far too many.It is easier and more efficient to jealously guard our individual freedoms than to wrestle them back from governments which are gaining ever more control of our lives. This requires pushing back on interventions by governments, a reason for ever more taxation (like the recent federal budget).Punitive as they are, the most insidious outcome of taxes (which our failing health care system and drug policies illustrate) is what governments do to us with our own money.
As the size of government continues to increase, individual responsibility decreases. Similarly, as individuals become less responsible regarding important aspects of their lives, demands for more government services increase. These trends feed on themselves then, and are growing in the Western world.This thought was triggered while viewing a CTV Saskatoon interview with a union representative about the early library closure in the city. The cause was the lack of safety in the evenings. As the night wears on, employees become more vulnerable to harassment from people who may be homeless and appear to be under the influence of drugs.The union rep spoke logically about the need to protect employees alone at night. But at the end of the interview, he attributed the problem to “underfunding of social services by the Saskatchewan Party government”.Blaming the Saskatchewan Party is no surprise, of course; unions just prefer big socialist governments. Look at the increase in public-sector employment during the NDP Notley years in Alberta, and the last eight years in Ottawa. Record hiring continued post Covid by the Trudeau/Singh unholy alliance.Essentially a business with revenues and expenses, unions cannot be faulted for supporting governments which increase their profitability and influence. But blaming the growing existence and behaviour of drug addicts on the Saskatchewan government? Did this government, by way of permissive policies, encourage the usage of illegal or illicit drugs? British Columbia, yes. But certainly not Saskatchewan. Was it a government official who made the purchase, or delivered the drugs to the user? Was it a Saskatchewan Party official who injected harmful drugs or lit the joint?We understand that no one smokes, drinks alcohol, or uses addictive drugs with the intention of becoming addicted. But these are individual choices, not the result of actions of any government, regardless of political persuasion.Yet, governments are expected to take responsibility for these damaging decisions. There is this to be said for the argument: The federal government and several provinces have set the “tone from the top,” with their de facto legalization of harmful drug usage. Sadly, Canada has become a leader in permissive drug laws. It began with the legalization of marijuana, one of the first and surely one of the worst decisions by the incumbent prime minister. That just opened the doors to widespread drug use including even the killer drug fentanyl. It has also made our young people vulnerable to ruthless foreign drug dealers.A response to unfortunate permissive policies is invariably demand for further government action. As homeless people, often drug addicts, expand their tent cities, social services attempt to keep up with the growing problem by way of “harm reduction.” This means providing clean syringes and even substitute drugs.This government intervention has been further extended with employees standing by with a syringe to revive obvious fatal overdoses. This is a further extension of the “nanny state” — preventing fatal self-harm. It also represents the ultimate surrender of individual responsibility.I can risk death by reckless behavior because the government will intervene.Although it will be historians who judge, it feels very much that the 300+ year advance of western civilization has tipped over and is in decline. This is in part a direct consequence of ever larger governments increasingly directing our lives, enabled by the absence of individual responsibility. The best (or perhaps worst) illustration of this phenomenon on a broader scale is our health-care system. Demand overwhelming the system was always the inevitable outcome of our single payer, free-to-user at point of service and exclusive provider model that makes governments responsible for a critical service... services that governments are not competent to deliver.Not competent? “Res ipsa loquitor” — the thing speaks for itself.Is the failure to adequately deliver one of the most important services for humanity the fault of government? Or are we complicit by surrendering responsibility? Maybe both?It wasn't the Saskatchewan Party which put in place permissive drug laws. Start with the federal government that legalized marijuana and then provincial governments such as British Columbia, which de facto legalized harmful drugs and encouraged destructive behavior with nanny-state comfort.Driving east on East Hastings in Vancouver, observing the incredible expansion of tents and open drug use, reveals the reality of a human tragedy and a sad exhibit of failed policies — even if this road to hell is paved with good intentions. The NDP government in British Columbia has fallen behind in the polls, just as an election is imminent. This led to a very rapid recent partial retreat from its permissive drug policies. The government can move on, but addiction, by definition, remains a destructive burden for the rest of the lives of far too many.It is easier and more efficient to jealously guard our individual freedoms than to wrestle them back from governments which are gaining ever more control of our lives. This requires pushing back on interventions by governments, a reason for ever more taxation (like the recent federal budget).Punitive as they are, the most insidious outcome of taxes (which our failing health care system and drug policies illustrate) is what governments do to us with our own money.
